Headlines

A deepening alliance between the old-line GOP and the tea party

Along the same lines, McConnell and the rest of the Senate GOP leadership reached out to a Tea Party freshman-elect who knocked off an establishment pick in the primary, naming Ted Cruz, R-Texas, one of two vice chairmen of the National Republican Senatorial Committee.

Rob Portman, a member in good standing of the GOP establishment, will be NRSC vice chairman for finance — he is the liaison to the party’s K Street, Wall Street and big business base. Cruz’s job title is “vice chair for grassroots outreach,” making him the liaison to the Tea Party base. Operatives in the insurgent wing of the party think the party hopes to use Cruz to mollify Tea Partiers unhappy with the establishment’s chosen candidates.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Yes, actually. The Whigs were replaced by The Republican Party as the alternative to Andrew Jackson’s Democratic party. The GOP has turned into The Whigs and the Tea Party is clearly gaining ground within their ranks.

The teaparty needs to continue purging RINOs and progressives from the GOP.

Rebar on November 19, 2012 at 9:50 PM

Yeah, because our numbers are so unbelievably massive that we can just keep losing people and winning elections. You want Democrat enablers out of the party? You should leave.

“True Conservatives” have now lost us five winnablein-the-bag Senate races and uncountable more in the peripheral effects of our rotten candidates in other states. Our current forty-five plus the five those morons threw away would put us at an even fifty with Harry Reid a private citizen.

I’m sure you and your ilk consider the defeat of so-called moderate GOPers to be a great victory. Pyrrhus of Epirus was not available for comment.

This could all change again. Crossroads, Karl Rove’s super-PAC, indicated last week it planned to get involved in GOP primaries as a counterweight to the Club for Growth and FreedomWorks

When was he not involved.

First, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, facing a potential primary challenge, chose a new campaign manager: Ron Paul’s campaign director and longtime aide, Jesse Benton. Paul was Tea Party before the Tea Party — chastising his own party for abandoning its stated principles, serving as a gadfly in primaries and rallying a base that otherwise would not have been engaged

Ron Paul was in the primaries for one purpose, to keep the conservative candidates from succeeding. This is why the RINOs treated him with kid gloves: because they were both working over the same enemies.

Maybe McConnell figures he can use the same tactic in the coming race to split votes off his perceived primary opposition.

The RINOs would be happy to redefine the Tea Party as the Paul party, but problem is the Tea Party did not grow from Paul’s base. Paul was there before the Tea Party. The Tea Party are reactionaries to the destruction of the Foundations of the country. Even the parts Paul despises.

“True Conservatives” have now lost us five winnable in-the-bag Senate races and uncountable more in the peripheral effects of our rotten candidates in other states. Our current forty-five plus the five those morons threw away would put us at an even fifty with Harry Reid a private citizen.

I’m sure you and your ilk consider the defeat of so-called moderate GOPers to be a great victory. Pyrrhus of Epirus was not available for comment.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:08 PM

By the way, I suppose it was that massive Moderate Wave in 2010 that flipped control of the House. Shit, if it had been up to your ilk the Reps would’ve LOST seats in 2010.

By the way, I suppose it was that massive Moderate Wave in 2010 that flipped control of the House. Shit, if it had been up to your ilk the Reps would’ve LOST seats in 2010.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Want to hear a secret?

Our 2010 House gains came mostly from center-right candidates in the suburbs, throwing out Blue Dog Democrats in right-leaning districts. You can cite firebrands like Allen West and Joe Walsh (both of whom lost this year, of course), but the numbers flipped because of folks like Pat Meehan, Renee Ellmers, Morgan Griffith, Reid Ribble, Alan Nunnelee, Bob Gibbs, Martha Roby, Richard Hanna, and others who are not full-throated conservatives.

Meanwhile, our Senate candidates that year vastly underperformed our House candidates, in terms of the popular vote. Pat Toomey and Ron Johnson were the exception, not the rule. And if our party doesn’t shape up, I guaran-damn-tee you that both will be in mortal danger in 2016.

Keep cocooning yourself in the blanket of ignorance, thinking that the 40% of (self-proclaimed, mind you) “conservatives” in this country will magically equal a 50% voting majority.

Our 2010 House gains came mostly from center-right candidates in the suburbs, throwing out Blue Dog Democrats in right-leaning districts. You can cite firebrands like Allen West and Joe Walsh (both of whom lost this year, of course), but the numbers flipped because of folks like Pat Meehan, Renee Ellmers, Morgan Griffith, Reid Ribble, Alan Nunnelee, Bob Gibbs, Martha Roby, Richard Hanna, and others who are not full-throated conservatives.

And if our party doesn’t shape up, I guaran-damn-tee you that both will be in mortal danger in 2016.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 10:29 PM

That’s interesting, by the way. What do you mean by “shape up”? Become more liberal? The GOP ran its most leftward presidential nominee this year of any in at least two decades, and he lost to the most beatable GOP incumbent in a century. And it’s the fault of Sharron Angle and Christine O’Donnell? LOL

TrueCons – and all Republicans – are damned lucky that Paul’s opponent made a major mistake in attacking his faith – Paul wasn’t always ahead in that race, and his moronic civil-rights comments to Rachel Maddow following his nomination were a hair’s-breadth away from making him the Todd Akin of that cycle.

And feel free to sit back and blame Fiorina and Rossi for not winning races in deep-blue states. Even though Rossi almost won despite the Dems running ads featuring O’Donnell’s witch comments against him.

LOL, you crack me up. Any time one of the hated TrueCons wins, it’s sheer luck. And any time a squish wins, it’s the electorate showing good sense. And any time a squish loses, it’s because of those damned TrueCons. Or you was robbed.

LOL, you crack me up. Any time one of the hated TrueCons wins, it’s sheer luck. And any time a squish wins, it’s the electorate showing good sense. And any time a squish loses, it’s because of those damned TrueCons. Or you was robbed.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:51 PM

You want to talk about good luck and bad luck? How about nominating two ticking time bombs in Missouri and Indiana this year, who each needed less than a minute to throw away a seat that was otherwise in the bag?

Angle, O’Donnell, Paul, Buck. Four candidates, four uncontrollable mouths, only one victory. I call that luck.

Oh, that’s nothing compared to that ultra-electable ticking time bomb at the top of the ticket. Talk about epic fail.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 10:59 PM

And now you’re just inventing things to “prove” your point. A “ticking time bomb” would imply that Romney threw away the race because of something unexpected. Inversely, Romney destroyed Obama in the first debate and actually repaired some of the damage that Obama was able to do by virtue of having an airwaves monopoly for the entire summer.

I’ll concede that Gingrich and Santorum were not ticking time bombs. Their unelectability, after all, was baked into the cake before they even started.

Well, the 47% remark probably did more damage than anything Akin said. It’s at least as provable.

ddrintn on November 19, 2012 at 11:09 PM

Am I to understand that the 47% remark is officially A Bad Thing now? Because when I and others said it was unwise and cringeworthy, folks like you called us squishy traitorous RINOs who couldn’t see it for the truth.

And don’t bother trying to disavow that particular sentiment, because it’s still going with Rush’s “Obama Claus” hobbyhorse.

Oh, I do like Gabe’s writing quite a bit. Ace’s as well. I like how Ace has the stones to look zealotry in the eye – even among commenters on his own blog – and say, “This isn’t helping the greater cause. Stop.”

I consider advocating against terrible candidates to be my atonement for supporting Angle in the Nevada race in ’10. It’s heartbreaking to watch our party throw away winnable seats and ensure the election and re-election of liberal Democrats for no higher purpose than to satisfy the vanity and self-indulgence of self-proclaimed True Conservatives.

We as a movement have got some differences to hash out. So far as I can tell, there are three burgeoning schools popping up: we-got-unlucky (Romney wasn’t conservative enough, Obama Claus, etc.), let’s-start-chucking-principles (amnesty now, let’s raise taxes on the rich, etc.), and the wait-and-see (let’s take action, but let’s not do it right now).

The first group seems to think: new election, better nominee, no Obama, better results. No real changes necessary.

The second: we’re screwed in the long term so we’d better start changing policy stances or we’re sunk.

The third: we’re screwed, but only in the short term. We can make appropriate changes without altering policy stances, but changes will have to be made.

I’d like to think I’m in the third group, but I can’t say that honestly quite yet.

this is the problem and why the GOp message about the 47% doesn’t sink in. What are these groups but takers. they are the GOp’s 47%. when the gop talks about the 47% the avg joe looks at the K street wall street and big business sweet heart deals the GOP gives out and says so what about the 47% If they are going to get theirs im going to get mine. If the GOp is worried about a nation of takers I think they need to clean house and kick these moochers from wall street big business and k street to the crub. Then and only then will thier message about taxes and cutting spending reach the majority of Americans.

supporting Angle in the Nevada race in ’10. It’s heartbreaking to watch our party throw away winnable seats and ensure the election and re-election of liberal Democrats for no higher purpose than to satisfy the vanity and self-indulgence of self-proclaimed True Conservatives.

KingGold on November 19, 2012 at 11:24 PM

first off. defeating any majoirty leader is a very tough hill to climb. It almost never happens. Dashele was a one off. So no the NV seat wasn’t “winnable” the only reason it was close in 2010 was because of the tea party wave that swept the nation. Take away the Tea party and candidates like Angle and Reid coasts to a 10 or 20 pt victory. And for the life of me I can’t understand the idiots that look at 2010 and they see the angle miss instead of the other 700 wins and landslide. they are ready to throw the baby out with the bathwater because instead of 701 wins they only got 700. the Senate wasn’t really in play in 2010. there was an outside chance of the GOp getting it. But it would have taken an almost perfect string of victories. the house wasn’t in play either until the Tea party rose up. To switch the House and so many state government in a single election is something not seen very often. SO instead of moaning about the one that got away understand if it wasn’t for the tea party the house would still be dem many state gov would still b ein the dems hands and the senate would have a fillibuster majority and Obama would have gotten everything he wanted. So if it takes an Angle and/or a COD or two to get people fired up off their seats and into the voting booth then that’s the price we need to pay. You want perfection in politics and there is no such thing. and if the old guard GOP would have got behind the “odd candidate” like a COD and Angle they might have won also because of the wave.

2012 gave us the “perfect candidate” in Mitt. good looks, well off, self made man with a nice family a decent record and he lost to a chitown thug who happens to be the worse POTUS in modern history.

IMO if the person has the right ideology no matter the quarks of theperson then they are lightyears ahead of the “perfect candidate ” who has the wrong ideology.